Using Quantitative and Qualitative Methods to Pretest the Publication Take Charge of Your Diabetes: A Guide for Care

Abstract

Quantitative and qualitative methods used to pretest the guidebook Take Charge of Your Diabetes: A Guide for Care are presented in this paper. Questionnaires were used as the quantitative method (completed by 59 diabetes educators and 301 people with diabetes) and focus groups were used as the qualitative method (3 groups composed of 22 black men and women with diabetes) to examine the relevance, purpose, content, and presentation of the Guide. Findings from between-methods triangulation supported the relevance, clarity Of messages, identification of groups that would be most likely to benefit, readability, understandability, and credibility of the Guide. Specific areas that needed modification were identified. Each evaluation method provided unique data; for example, quantifiable data on intention to change behavior was provided from one method and a recommendation that diversity be maintained was provided from the other method, The relative strengths and limitations of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches are described.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Funnell MM , Haas LB National standards for diabetes self-management education programs. Diabetes Care 1995; 18: 100-16.

Duchin SP , Brown SA Patients should participate in designing diabetes educational content. Patient Educ Counsel 1990;16:255-67.

Hosey GM , Freeman WL , Stracqualursi F. Gohdes D. Designing and evaluating diabetes education material for American Indians . Diabetes Educ 1990;16(5):407-14.

Steckler A. , Eng E. , Goodman RM Integrating qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods. Hygiene 1991/1992;10:16-20.

Quatromoni PA , Mibbauer M. , Posner BM , et al. Use of focus groups to explore nutrition practices and health beliefs of urban Caribbean Latinos with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994; 17:869-73.

Anderson RM , Barr PA , Edward GJ , et al. Using focus groups to identify psychosocial issues facing urban African Americans with diabetes. Diabetes Educ 1996;22(1):28-33.

Satterfield DW , Edgar TM , Erlich AB , et al. Assessing community perceptions of diabetes using a qualitative education tool. Diabetes 1996;45 (2):44A.

Kingry MJ , Tiddje LB , Friedman LL Focus groups: a research technique for nursing. Nurs Res 1990;39: 124-25.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Take charge of your diabetes: a guide for care. Atlanta, Ga: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Division of Diabetes Translation , 1992.

10.

National Diabetes Advisory Board. The national long-range plan to combat diabetes. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, 1988; NIH publication no. 88-1587.

11.

Funnell MM , Donnelly MB , Anderson RM , Johnson PD , Oh MS Perceived effectiveness, cost, and availability of patient education methods and materials. Diabetes Educ 1992;18(2): 139-45.

12.

Yasenchak PA Bridle MJ A low-literacy skin care manual for spinal cord injury patients. Patient Educ Couns 1993 ;22:1-5.

13.

Bernier MJ , Yasko J. Designing and evaluating printed education materials: model and instrument development. Patient Educ Couns 1991; 18:253-63.

14.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention and treatment of complications of diabetes: a guide for primary care practitioners. Atlanta, Ga: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Division of Diabetes Translation, Centers for Disease Control, 1991 .

15.

Satterfield D. , Lyons A. Development of a consensus publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC): the prevention and treatment of complications of diabetes — a guide for primary care practitioners. Diabetes Educ 1992; 18(6):473-75.

16.

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration. Pretesting is essential; you can choose from various methods . Washington, DC: Public Health Service, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992, ADAMHA publication no. MS428.

17.

Roper WL Health communication takes on new dimensions at CDC. Public Health Rep 1993; 108:179-83.

18.

Hilltleman D. Readability, readability formulas, and cloze: selecting instructional materials. J Reading 1987;22: 117-22.

19.

Pastore PO , Berg BK The evaluation of patient education materials: focus on readability. Patient Educ Counsel 1987;9:216-19.

20.

Health Promotion Council of Southeastem Pennsylvania Health Literacy Project. A focus group evaluation of Take Charge of Your Diabetes: A Guide for Care. Philadelphia, Pa: submitted to CDC, Division of Diabetes Translation , April, 1994 ; project no. 93-231.

21.

Duffy ME Methodological triangulation: a vehicle for merging quantitative and qualitative research methods. IMAGE: J Nurs Scholar 1987 ; 19:130-33.

22.

Breitmayer BJ , Ayres L. , Knafl KA Triangulation in qualitative research: evaluation of completeness and confirmation purposes. IMAGE: J Nurs Scholar 1993:25:237-43.

23.

Banik BJ

Applying triangulation in nursing research. Applied

Nurs Res 1993;6:47-52.

24.

Buchanan DR An uneasy alliance: combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Health Educ Q 1992:19:117-35.

25.

Steckler A. , McLeroy KR , Goodman RM , Bird ST , McCormick L. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Educ Q 1992;19:1-8.